Exhibit Naming - what do you prefer?

What do you prefer in an exhibit name?

  • Reference to a 'key' species featured in the exhibit

    Votes: 4 3.4%

  • Reference to the geographical area that the exhibit is focusing on

    Votes: 49 42.2%

  • Taxonomic houses - nice and simple 'reptile house' etc

    Votes: 11 9.5%

  • A mixture of the above

    Votes: 47 40.5%

  • Other [please state]

    Votes: 5 4.3%
  • Total voters
    116
Javan Rhino

Javan Rhino

Well-Known Member
15+ year member
With the competition to rename Chester's 'Spirit of the Jaguar' in our minds, I thought I would start a thread on the naming of zoo exhibits and what are the pros and cons of a name, plus what can be considered in naming an exhibit and also, generally, what sort of names you prefer.

I'm not a fan of exhibits that use the 'star species' common name in the title, because in my personal opinion it detracts from the other species held. It's enforcing the idea of an ABC 'star' animal, with everything else being replaceable sideshows to these.

I much prefer names that reference the geographical area that the animal comes from - so, rather than Polar Bear Plunge I prefer SeaWorld's Wild Arctic.

I also, sometimes, like the traditional 'cat house' 'tropical house' etc, so long as it fits with the feel of the particular collection. So, what are your thoughts?
 
Mixture for me. It all depends on the exhibit. Most exhibits do not need names, I always feel - but it's nice when the really major ones have one. (I apologise for using so many Colchester examples below but they offer such good examples!)

Pet hates include:

- names that sound good but don't actually mean much (although I've become used to it over the years, 'Spirit of the Jaguar' is a prime example!)

- names that are a big grand name for a rather basic exhibit (mentioning no Colchesters)

- exhibits being named when they don't need/justify it (if you build a new otter exhibit, why does it have to be called 'otter creek'?)

- mismatch between names and exhibit (Orang-Utan Forest anyone..?)

- giving a one-species exhibit a non-species-specific name (Playa Patagonia) or a broader exhibit a name that only reflects one inhabitant (Elephant Odyssey)

- 'clever' acronyms

Basically, lots of little things annoy me about zoo exhibit names, so I tend to ignore them.

I think my broad rule would be 'keep it simple' - and only name it if there's a reason to name it!
 
Maguari said:
I think my broad rule would be 'keep it simple' - and only name it if there's a reason to name it!
Click to expand...

That makes perfect sense - my thought for the thread was exhibits as opposed to enclosures [if that makes sense, I think the two words portray very different meanings], so proper areas with multiple species. Probably works better with zoos that use a lot of theming :p
 
Maguari said:
- names that are a big grand name for a rather basic exhibit (mentioning no Colchesters)

- exhibits being named when they don't need/justify it (if you build a new otter exhibit, why does it have to be called 'otter creek'?)
Click to expand...

I agree! I think Banham's snow leopard enclosure is a very good example of this. 'Province of the Snow Cat' is just ridiculous.

If it is a large, multi species, multi enclosure exhibit I can just about deal with it but I'm not keen on the whole.
 
javan rhino, where can i find infomation about this re-naming of spirit f the jaguar?
 
I like exhibits to contain multiple enclosures and being based on a geographical location. For example a Sonoran dessert exhibit with one enclosure for peccaries, some aviaries and a bobcat enclosure. That adds much to the immersion of the exhibit. I think the key in such type of exhibitory are viewpoints in which you can see multiple species aligned. For example a small mongoose enclosure, behind that a lion enclosure and behind the lions you can catch a glimpse of the savannah. I really don't like taxonomic based exhibition design, it takes all the immersion away in my opinion. I also don't feel much for the "key species name". To me an exhibit exists of multiple species, horticulture and cultural references and not just one species (which a "key species name" will not imply.
 
If i hear one more "Tiger tails" "Tiger Trails" "Trail of the Tiger" im gonna start posting fake zoo maps on the web with better exhibit/ area names. "Asian Tropics" "Tropical Forests of Asia" its all the same to me and I frequently get zoos confused due to it. I like names based on location. For example, if you look at the diversity of North America and you pick a spot where you have a lot of fauna give me a location like "Great Bear Rainforest" which is in British Columbia or like "Yosemite Valley". I will be the first to agree Amazon anything is over used, but it is rich diversity in addition to its flooded forests. So maybe give a river tributary name and say where it is. One thing i don't like is something like Lowry Park's Ituri forest and yet I couldn't tell you where that is on a map with out google because I never learned where that was at my zoo.
 
I presume that the spirit of the jaguar is something to-do with the car sponsorship thing? The car manufacturers paid for the entire exhibit did they not?
 
My plea is for names that tell the truth.
The old plain vanilla style of 'Reptile House', 'Elephants of the Asian Forest' etc is fine and I like 'BUGS!' so much that I will forgive the superfluous exclamation mark. 'Forests', 'Jungles', 'Deserts', 'Swamps', 'Steppes' and so on are fine if they are appropriate. And if sponsors have paid good money, they are entitled to have their names used, such as 'Mappin Terraces' and 'Blackburn Pavilion' - although these have the disadvantage of not telling you anything about the animals there.
But the 'Snowdon Aviary' has nothing to do with Welsh mountains (it was designed by Lord Snowdon), so I'd rename that. I would ban 'Islands in Danger' because the islands are fine (with the possible exception of Montserrat); I hate all 'Realms' and 'Kingdoms' because they have nothing to do with kings or queens. I suppose I would have to grudgingly accept 'Worlds' because no-one would really expect to see the whole world in one place, so by extension I would have to accept 'Universe of the Uakari' if any zoo was bold enough to build it (it could be good :)).
I am afraid that the very worst names are at Chester; 'Europe on the Edge' . . . of Asia? . . . of the Atlantic Ocean? . . . of a nervous breakdown? . . . or is it a headline from the Daily Torygraph? At last 'Spirit of the Jaguar' is going - there are only two places where spirits are found in a zoo - the animal hospital and the bar :D
Alan
 
gentle lemur said:
'Europe on the Edge' . . . of Asia? . . . of the Atlantic Ocean? . . . of a nervous breakdown? . . . :D
Alan
Click to expand...

surely......of Financial Collapse.....:p


Is this boring, but it's what I would like....

Elephant House
Rhino House
Bug House
Reptile House
Giraffe House
Great Ape House
Tropical House
Butterfly House

you get the trend now....

Also within these houses there should be signage about taxonomy of the species, nothing in great depth, but I think zoos should be doing this to educate those who want to read more. Don’t remove the 'trendy' conservation posters and signs, but don’t ignore taxonomy of species please zoos.
 
Last edited:
gentle lemur said:
I am afraid that the very worst names are at Chester; 'Europe on the Edge' . . . of Asia? . . . of the Atlantic Ocean? . . . of a nervous breakdown?
Click to expand...

:):):) I obviously don't pay attention, as many times as I've been to Chester I don't know what this exhibit is.

I don't mind realm, Puluh's as good a king as any!
 
Maguari said:
- names that are a big grand name for a rather basic exhibit (mentioning no Colchesters)

why does it have to be called 'otter creek'?)

- mismatch between names and exhibit (Orang-Utan Forest anyone..?)

Agree on all of these. Colchester do seem to have many of the worst examples- ridiculous claims for perfectly ordinary or sometimes poor artificial exhibits which just IMO highlight the differences between the species' natural habitat and the shortcomings of what the zoo provides-
Specifically at Colchester; Orangutan Forest/ Mangabey Forest/ and most laughable of all- 'Gelada Plateau'.:rolleyes: Other zoos are culpable to; Paignton's 'Mandrill Forest' is a tiny paddock with a shrub and one small tree in it. I am not saying the enclosures are always inadequate, just that I think far better to leave out these 'habitat' names altogether unless exhibit goes at least some way to matching the description.

Bristol hit the right note perhaps I think with e.g. 'Gorilla Island'- which is what the exhibit is.
Click to expand...
 
^pertinax, I could be picky and say bristols gorilla enclosure is actually a peninsula ;)
 
OrangePerson said:
:):):) I obviously don't pay attention, as many times as I've been to Chester I don't know what this exhibit is.
Click to expand...

The European birds aviary (the name appears at the top of the banks of signs). The original description in the guide book explained the intention was for it to refer to 'European species on the edge of extinction, or species on the edge of their range in Europe'.

Hmmm.
 
A good, easy-to-understand exhibit name should ideally have a combination of any two of the following:

- Key specie on display (Tiger, Elephant, Gorilla, etc)
- Geographic location (Asia, Africa, Amazon, etc)
- Biological niche (River, Savannah, Forest, etc)

A suffix of "Wild" is acceptable if the exhibit covers a range of habitat types and species.

And i agree that individual exhibits really should avoid having a grandiose title. "Province of the Snow Cat" being a fine example as Shirokuma pointed out.
 
Personally I think that all exhibits should be named either "Bob" or "Mabel", or if you prefer something gender neutral, "Kim".
 
Maguari said:
The original description in the guide book explained the intention was for it to refer to 'European species on the edge of extinction, or species on the edge of their range in Europe'.

Its a slightly clumsy abbreviation- they've taken four words out of the original idea to condense it and ended up with a slightly meaningless title.

But I like it as an exhibit.;)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top